Prediction market provider Kalshi could be hit with a temporary restraining order from the state of Nevada after a federal appeals court declined to block such a request Thursday.
The Nevada Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease and desist order in March 2025, ordering him to stop offering sports-related prediction market contracts. However, Kalshi said a subsequent request for a temporary restraining order from Nevada “sought to prohibit Kalshi from offering all of its event contracts.” Kalshi attempted to take the case to federal court, but the case was expected to be moved to state court if the appeals court did not grant him an administrative stay.
On Thursday, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Kalshi’s motion for an administrative stay in a federal case, clearing the way for the case to be sent back to state court.
In her appeal filed March 13, Kalshi warned that she would “face imminent harm” if the appeals court did not grant her request because “the state court process would infringe on Kalshi’s appellate rights in this appeal” and a related action.
The platform said it could find itself litigating the same issue — namely whether Nevada state regulators have jurisdiction — in four different courts, including a Nevada state court, a Nevada federal court and two different appeals court cases.
“Allowing this to occur would create an untenable risk of subjecting Kalshi to conflicting decisions by federal and state courts,” the filing says. “For example, the state court could enter judgment against Kalshi, finding that the CEA does not preempt state gambling laws, whereas in the Assad case, this Court [another case] comes to the exact opposite conclusion. »
Dan Wallach, a video game attorney, said in an article on X that a temporary restraining order would push Kalshi out of Nevada for at least two weeks, pending a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
The temporary restraining order could come in the coming days, he said.
Kalshi and other prediction market providers face retaliation in more than a dozen state actions, with state-level regulators arguing they have jurisdiction over at least sports-related betting products. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission argued that it had exclusive jurisdiction over prediction market providers and filed an amicus brief in one of the federal cases to defend this position.
The CFTC even signed a memorandum of understanding with Major League Baseball, announced at the same time as MLB’s announcement of its partnership with Polymarket.
